Why are some concert pianists more successful than other deserving ones?

[ubon2010]

I recently came upon this interview of Italian pianist Francesco Libetta
 https://getclassical.blogspot.com/2012/05/francesco-libetta-italian-piano-artist.html 
Quote: "There is an invisible net in the music business and its workings are mysterious. It’s very hard to explain why some artists are successful and others aren’t as much ...  there are musicians that are praised a lot but don’t sell season tickets and then the opposite is true of some very famous names that are magnets at the box office. I guess it’s a combination of curiosity and fashion."

I have been pondering about that very question.  I suspect some of that mysterious workings have to do with promotional tactics and business connections.  But more important may be a performer's rapport with the audience.  What do you think?

[thalbergmad]

The single word answer is marketing.

That is why average pianists like Lang Lang & Lisitsa make the dough.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

The best pianists are not necessarily the best businessmen/women. Being a performer also is not something learned sitting at the piano, if the general audience finds you a boring performer then they generally wont really care how well you play. Piano solo concerts are also not that popular compared to the rest of the music world, professional pianists who rely on their fame to sell tickets will often not sell as much  as someone who promotes and manages the business of concert selling at a professional level.

[birba]

Lebrecht wrote a very controversial book called "the maestro myth".  All about the field of conductors.  It's worth it just to read about sinopoli.

[perfect_pitch]

That is why average pianists like Lang Lang & Lisitsa make the dough.

HEY... Don't DARE lump Lisitsa with the bloody dislikes of Lang Lang...

It's like comparing a Golden apple with a turd wrapped in tin-foil.

[louispodesta]

There has been an unequivocal bias against American pianists for at least the last 40 years.  With the exception of Cliburn, you would be hard pressed to name any U.S. pianist who has been successfully promoted worldwide.

What about Ax?  He is Canadian, and Bronfman is Israeli.   Uchida is from Japan, and Lang Lang from China.   Nel is from South Africa and Kern is from Russia.

Johnny Smith from America was told to change his name to Zimon Barto.

The piano competitions and the music conservatories all go along with this bias.   When a young man from my home of San Antonio was admitted to Juilliard about ten years ago, he was the only American citizen admitted that year as a piano major.

When American audiences, who pay outrageous amounts for season tickets start to demand American artists, then things will change.  However, most of them has been brainwashed into believing that the really true artists come from abroad.

When you have he classical version of "American Idol," then the transformation can begin.

[birba]

The single word answer is marketing.

That is why average pianists like Lang Lang & Lisitsa make the dough.

Thal

Evidently rach4ever has not come across this thread, yet.  When he does thal, you are doomed!

[pianoman53]

HEY... Don't DARE lump Lisitsa with the bloody dislikes of Lang Lang...

It's like comparing a Golden apple with a turd wrapped in tin-foil.

Yeah, I mean, she is musical, and doesn't at all play everything the same. Oh wait...
...
It's just something I don't like when a piece by Schubert, Mozart and Liszt sounds exactly the same. A more uninspiring pianist is very difficult to find.

But it's really cool how fast she can play -.-

[dima_76557]

But it's really cool how fast she can play -.-

I don't think that's the only reason she is so popular. Some of her YouTube clips get near 5 million views with a neglectable number of "dislikes". Although she's not my favorite pianist (I find her cold as ice most of the time), her concert-level performances of Rachmaninov's concertos without orchestra are really something. I would never call such a person "average". I think she is one of the great ambassadors of classical music for the simple crowd, which is something to be grateful for, because the greater the number of potential concert-goers, the better it may be for you too if you are a concert pianist. If you have to depend on the elite snobs only, then you can't make much of a career in this business anyway.

[ubon2010]

The single word answer is marketing.

And it also seems very territorial.  Currently, a certain heavily promoted female pianist (who is mentioned in the article that I cited in my original post) seems to sell out every venue in U.S. and Europe, but recently performed in several concert halls in Japan with many empty seats.

And, speaking of Marketing, I find it puzzling that Yundi Li and Alice Sara Ott -- both Deutsche Grammophon artists -- are seemingly pitted against each other performing at the same time on May 14 (2013) at the two different venues of the Berliner Philharmonie - dooming the ticket sales of each
https://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en/konzerte/calendar/
And their performances come at the heel of a sold-out recital of the aforementioned female pianist.

And, of course, luck plays a large part too in this matter.

[ubon2010]

Being a performer also is not something learned sitting at the piano, if the general audience finds you a boring performer then they generally wont really care how well you play.

Agreed.  And here is something that I concluded from my case studies: first impression counts enormously, for the same reason that the opening paragraph of a novel is supposed to be something that "hooks" the reader.  This, I think, is why a certain female pianist appears on stage in provocative outfits ("dressed like a hostess" is how one Japanese tweet put it) to make that  "hook".   And this is why piano competitions still matter, because under the right circumstances, they provide a dramatic introduction of a pianist to the viewers of the world.  I admit that this is how I have become a big fan of Nobuyuki Tsujii.

Still, in order to sustain the interest of the general audience, you have to be able to continue to engage them.

I don't mean any disrespect to Evgeny Kissin, who is unquestionably a great pianist.  So please don't flame me.    But I do wonder if he were to emerge these days (when virtuosos are seemingly a dime a dozen), would he be as successful?

[le_poete_mourant]

I don't mean any disrespect to Evgeny Kissin, who is unquestionably a great pianist.  So please don't flame me.    But I do wonder if he were to emerge these days (when virtuosos are seemingly a dime a dozen), would he be as successful?

I think you can't underestimate the impact a performer's personality or presence has on an audience. Even people who aren't well-versed in classical music can pick up on this. Kissin is one of those pianists who I think brings an incredible energy and excitement to the stage, and people can feel this. He's also an enigma in many ways.  I also think that personality off stage makes a huge impact too. People who are great people persons, have charm and charisma beyond your average amount, are often very successful too.

[bronnestam]

I watched a YouTube clip with Lisitsa which - I'm sorry to say that - was horrible. Even I play with more feeling (and I am bad even for being an amateur). But I can also see exactly why she has been so successful. She can play very fast, her technique is good. And her videos are somewhat spectacular with her dresses and, most of all, odd posture style ...

Maybe that is what it takes: an odd appearance, that will differ from the other 2000 pianists you have seen. You don't have to stand on your head in order to be impressive, but you have to be something that the audience will remember.

Now, let's also keep in mind that not all pianists WANT to be "super stars". Yes, life as an artist could be tough, the competition is hard, many struggle to make ends meet, and so on. But on the other end of the scale, does everyone really want to be like Justin Bieber or Elvis? (To use some extreme examples.)  Personally I would hate to get my freedom so restricted. Not to mention all the nutcases who want to stalk you, marry you or even murder you. Not to mention all the ordinary fans who think it is perfectly all right to discuss your private life on every Internet fan forum available. Or the paparazzis, or the Haters, or the criminals who think you are a suitable target for kidnapping and blackmailing, or the golddiggers who love to sue you, or claim that they have given birth to your child, and so on, so on.
No, being famous is not always funny, I can see that. So maybe some of the pianists are perfectly content with the audience they have today, not wishing for 100 times more.

 

[ubon2010]

Maybe that is what it takes: an odd appearance, that will differ from the other 2000 pianists you have seen. You don't have to stand on your head in order to be impressive, but you have to be something that the audience will remember.

Yes, whatever it takes to create a first impression that gets you in the door, and then, as pianist Francesco Libettis is quoted to say in that article https://getclassical.blogspot.com/2012/05/francesco-libetta-italian-piano-artist.html (it's really an excellent interview):
"The world is great and there will always be a place where you can perform once. But if you are in one season program you will be in others as well ... People like to fall back on names they are familiar with."  
I think there are only a handful of pianists that  can be counted on to sell tickets for season programs (e.g., Uchida, Kissin) year in, year out.  But most others are those for whom "there will always be a place where you can perform once."

Quoting from the interview again: "That’s one of the problems of giving live concerts. You have to be able to adjust your dynamics. In a big hall that requires a lot of sound, but, with compressed sound bites on YouTube, it is not necessary. Therefore, if you just play fast enough you will sound great on YouTube, but it takes a different kind of musician to perform on stage. It also involves the audience in a special way. It appears as if it’s one musician playing to thousands of people, but really it is thousands of people willing to listen to this one musician as well. “

[teran]

Performance is about working the crowd.

Casual listeners aren't going to be finicky about the fine details of dynamics and phrasing, and any showy display of virtuosity really is a big selling point too.

Basically, work the crowd and give them something to remember and they'll come back wanting more. You could say that's not what art is about, and that it's about much more noble self expression, but then that's where you as a performer have to draw the line between whether you want to be an artist true to yourself, or work the crowd in the name of better business.

Tbh, the latter isn't even a bad thing either, after all it still sends a lot of people home with a fond memory, and isn't touching people in a positive way a good thing?

Complex and nuanced art only appeals to a minority, anything at its most refined only appeals to a minority. It takes a hell of a lot of charisma and artistic brilliance to capture all the crowds, but there we go.

[ubon2010]

Performance is about working the crowd.

Casual listeners aren't going to be finicky about the fine details of dynamics and phrasing, and any showy display of virtuosity really is a big selling point too.

Basically, work the crowd and give them something to remember and they'll come back wanting more. You could say that's not what art is about, and that it's about much more noble self expression, but then that's where you as a performer have to draw the line between whether you want to be an artist true to yourself, or work the crowd in the name of better business.

Complex and nuanced art only appeals to a minority, anything at its most refined only appeals to a minority. It takes a hell of a lot of charisma and artistic brilliance to capture all the crowds, but there we go.

Franz Liszt (showman) versus Chopin (artist) -- we know who lived a longer and better life!   Yes, like it or not, Lang Lang is here to stay.

But I do agree that pleasing the crowd is not necessarily a bad thing, and I think that's why classical music reviews have become so insignificant.  These critics write  to the minority who fuss over a complex and nuanced art that casual listeners care little about.  I used to resent them (the critics), but lately I have begun to pity them.

[stiefel]

I object to two things thus far stated.

Franz Liszt (showman) versus Chopin (artist) -- we know who lived a longer and better life!   

Franz Liszt is way too often abused.  Just because he was at his best when playing as showy as possible, or composing as virtuosically as possible doesn't mean he's not an artist.  Take his sonata, for example.  That's not the product of a mere showman.  Read Alfred Brendel's essays about Liszt for more insight.  One is "Liszt Misunderstood."

Second, the posts before me have annoyingly underestimated the capabilities of an audience.  If the performer truly knows the piece and is communicating as sincerely as possible at a deep emotional level, the audience will sense and appreciate this.  Even uneducated audiences.

[steinway43]

When Kern won the Cliburn I was a bit ticked off. I will have to admit I didn't hear every note played by every contestant, but from what I did hear she was not the best, not at all. But she's pretty and fills a bra nicely, doesn't she? Looks matter. That and likeability.

When a few of us hot shots were told at university that we couldn't compete because we didn't look good one of the other victims of this told me she went to a lot of competitions and saw that the best pianists almost never won because top prize was given for looks. And trust me she would know.

Image is everything to a lot of people. Someone mentioned first impressions, and that's definitely true, but looks can even affect how a brain interprets aural information. There are some for whom the stage is where the halo effect collides with the McGurk effect. It's not a comfortable subject to approach but it's there and it's real and it's very sad. You can talk about the exceptions to this but you all know that on the whole I'm right. And I've seen this over and over again, good looking people given credentials in piano who CANNOT PLAY, and accompanists called brilliant who SUCK and play wrong notes all over the place but look like models. Madness.

If you ask me, Lang Lang skates on his image and his ridiculous overacting at the keyboard. I've never heard him give what I would call a great performance. And I heard a recording of him playing the Tchaikowsky first with the LA Phil that was so bad, that if I'd been the conductor I would have stopped the orchestra mid-first movement to demand his removal from the stage with an apology to the audience. It was unconscionable. He couldn't do the alternating octave passages evenly to save his life, at least on that night, and that's the easiest part of the whole damn thing. Still the audience eats him up.

I wasn't aware of the anti-American bias but now that you mention it I can see it. I'm gob smacked about Juilliard. One American pianist admitted? That's outrageous. They should be ashamed.

Marketing? Sure, a factor. Personality? Yes, but there is also luck and politics. In any field if you piss off the wrong person it can be deadly. And let's not forget all the competition out there and the insatiable desire for the latest wunderkind.

  What a world. 



 

[chopin2015]

Liszt and Chopin are completely different. I feel more connection to Chopin, but Liszt's music is interesting and entertaining, also it can be beautiful and so sad because really, his love life was screwed up. I like to see someone take music beyond the showbiz/stage calculated performance. I think Lisitsa showed the most promise in Rach music because she loves it and has pride in nationality. I saw a man play the rach 2 concerto and he was really good. Not really famous like Hamelin who has giant hands and quirky/nerdy persona. But he worked so hard! He wanted it so bad! Not the money, the music! You could tell he loved playing the piano for people and people often found themselves teary-eyed when we could feel the energy cycling and it was pure music without any limits, not from lack of creativity or inspiration or bad instrument. It was meant to be. Also, when someone's soul is in it, you can tell. It's when the person is so desperate that they don't care about being flashy and throwing their hair. But it may happen naturally. Natural is more impressive and the body language is much different than pure show tricks.

[bronnestam]

Second, the posts before me have annoyingly underestimated the capabilities of an audience.  If the performer truly knows the piece and is communicating as sincerely as possible at a deep emotional level, the audience will sense and appreciate this.  Even uneducated audiences.

I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you. OK, make up an audience consisting of merely people from this honourable discussion board and similar - face it, most of us are piano nerds. We live in our little world where you are considered an idiot if you have never heard of Van Cliburn or Lang Lang. But I can tell you, none of my friends have. They are not stupid, nor uneducated, and they know very well who Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin were. They even listen to classical music from time to time.  But if you drag them to a concert where a random pianist play something they have never heard before, they really cannot tell whether this is world class or just "good".

As a fiction writer I know, just too well, that most readers (and critics, mind you) find the qualities they expect to find in a book. Sometimes less, never more. Same goes for musicians. You tell people that some local talent is going to play - for free - in church this weekend and some enthusiasts will show up - there will be plenty of seats left - and I swear that even if you put Mr. Kissin Himself there, and he gives the performance of his LIFE, nobody will say "this must be one of the greatest pianists in the world". I mean, you would seem very naive if you did. Few people really dare to trust their own ears and taste.

Then, on the other hand, you must also remember that if you think you are a real connoisseur, you are also a bit protective  about your interests. You really don't want to like the same thing as the "public" do. So when you are to mention you favourite piano piece, or composer, or pianist, you just cannot mention the most popular and famous names because that would make you seem "common" or even "ignorant". You don't know more than the main, uneducated public, eek.

Well, these might be two sides of the same coin, the fear of trusting your own feelings.

OK, but I don't want to declare that we are all idiots in every situation. If you are a true music lover, you will from time to time find yourself in a concert where the performance totally enchants you, and you walk away from there with the feeling you have been in heaven for a while. You don't ask for anyone else's opinion, you are just happy to know ... for sure ... what you just have experienced. Maybe you read a review the next day, where the critic obviously has been both deaf and dumb, and you think "what an idiot!" but you don't adjust your own opinion because of what that idiot wrote. I admit that this sometimes also happens!
But then you start to wonder why the whole world does not agree with you. Why this musician, who gave this remarkable performance, does not have millions of fans all over the world. Why they celebrate some other second rate talent instead, because he/she looks better, has appeared in "Survivor", is from the "right" country, has more likes on YouTube or whatever.

Well ... I suppose that is what this thread is about.    So this posting did probably not add anything of value to the discussion.

Personally I will never make it into the Hall of Fame, no matter if I learn to play like God. Why? Because. I. Am. Not. Slender.

[louispodesta]

steinway 43:

Olga Kern came to San Antonio and played some Shotakovich Preludes which sounded like Debussy Preludes because of overpedaling.  Then, she tried to play the Brahms Paganini Variations, once again with leadfoot.  I really don't understand why people think it is okay to play pieces in public that they don't have the technique for, but this woman does.

Next, she did the same thing with the Rachmaninoff Sonata No.2, which she does not have the skills or maturity to play.  However, when she played the same program at the Metropolitan Museum of Art series, she got a good review.

That brings up a subject which no one so far has addressed and that is the power of the major newspaper critics to make or not make a career.  Harold Schonberg, as stated by Earl Wild in his recent Memoir, couldn't play his way out of a paper bag.

And yet, not only was this man's word God, they even made him a jury member at one of the Cliburn competitions.

Now, you have Anthony Tommasini at the NY Times referring to Lang Lang as a "work in progress."  Jeez, after ten years onstage, how long are we supposed to wait?

Before Tommasini, there was Bernard Holland who stated unequivocally thet he didn't like the music of Franz Liszt!  How is this man supposed to be a good judge of piano performance?

So, as long as cold emotionless fish like Pollini continue to get rave reviews, nothing will change and same hype that follows rock n roll bands around like they are gods, will do the same injustice to classical music in general.

[birba]

I agree with you regarding kern and pollini.  And while schonberg could be quite obnoxious and flippant at times (he said in kempff's ny debut, that a 10-old-girl had better technique then he - - and Kempff never returned to the states) it's not mandatory for a critic to be a pianist.  or any instrumentalist, as far as that goes.  The job of a critic is that of a musician.  A discerning musician with an extensive musical background.  They certainly have a right to their personal tastes, (de gustibus non disputandum est!) but should never put that before the job in hand:  to "objectively" critique a concert.
At any rate, it's not the critic who makes or breaks a career, it's marketing, usually controlled by the recording multi-nationals.

[louispodesta]

As someone who has critiqued concerts, I know a little bit about the inner workings of the music business.   And, to think that the marketing departments of the multi-national record companies and the music critics of this world don't rub shoulders is somewhat naive.   This is especially true in Europe where a critic can be bought and paid for with a drop of a hat.

That is how it starts.  You start an artist off in Europe, after they have won some competition, which was most likely rigged.  Then, you gradually build a base of good reviews.  By the time they hit the States, unless they really step in it, an artist usually gets a free pass by the critics on their first tour.

After that, it is up to the record company to re-invest in a particular artist.  Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.  If they do, they usually quote from those good U.S. reviews extensively.

Harold Schonberg died an extremely wealthy man, and it darn sure wasn't from his salary as a music critic or from his book sales or lecture fees.  He was so poor as a teenager that he took jobs as a sparring partner for professional boxers.

[steinway43]

On Kern and the Brahms Paganini Variations, I took one chance on her and bought her recording of them. I can't believe a label would release such awful playing. But with her image they know they can market the hell out of her and make MONEY. I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to stop and listen to Kissin's recording to restore my sanity.

And I could not agree more about Pollini. I wasn't familiar with him when I bought his Chopin Etudes. They are technically flawless, surgically precise to the n'th degree, but utterly lifeless, as if a corpse were playing. No humanity there. If someone says they like Pollini, I have to wonder what that says about THEM.

 

[louispodesta]

When Kern played the Brahms in San Antono, I couldn't stand it anymore after Book I, and I got up and walked out.

For your listening pleasure I link the recording of Book I by Earl Wild.

In his Memoir, he commented pro and con on many pianists.  However, there was only one that he singled out by saying "whatever you do, do not play the piano like Mazurio Pollini."

[ubon2010]

 Few people really dare to trust their own ears and taste.

Agreed.  I am not an expert in classical music, but I have lived long enough to know which music performances I have truly enjoyed and which I have not, no matter what others say.  

Then, on the other hand, you must also remember that if you think you are a real connoisseur, you are also a bit protective  about your interests. You really don't want to like the same thing as the "public" do. So when you are to mention you favourite piano piece, or composer, or pianist, you just cannot mention the most popular and famous names because that would make you seem "common" or even "ignorant". You don't know more than the main, uneducated public, eek.

Well said.  I always wince when critics write with disdain about performances of familiar works (work horses), as in this May 2, 2013 piece by Tommasini https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/arts/music/recitals-by-nikolay-khozyainov-and-emanuele-torquati.html?_r=0
From now on, I will always think of what you wrote above whenever I read that sort of holier-than-thou remarks.

Well ... I suppose that is what this thread is about.    So this posting did probably not add anything of value to the discussion.

I started this thread because I am relatively new to the classical concert scene (as a listener), and I began to wonder about the popularity (and lack thereof) of certain performers.  Some of what you and others have written here reflect what I have come to suspect based on my own observation.  It is good to read such opinions expressed with heart-felt vehemence and great elegance.  Thank you!

Personally I will never make it into the Hall of Fame, no matter if I learn to play like God. Why? Because. I. Am. Not. Slender.

I understand how frustrating it must be for those struggling for recognition, but I do think sometimes -- under rare circumstances  -- talent does prevail.   Think: Emanuel Ax and Andre Watts.  And although he is an unusual case, Nobuyuki Tsujii (born blind and pear-shaped in physique) is already a living legend in Japan.

[dima_76557]

If someone says they like Pollini, I have to wonder what that says about THEM.

I think every performer has a right to be judged by what he/she does best.

I do like the Schubert Sonata in A major D 959 by 41-year old Pollini, especially the Andantino (at 14:50) of which I have never heard such a moving rendition.

I also adore his recording of Chopin's 3rd sonata:
1. Allegro maestoso:

2. Scherzo:

3. Largo:

4. Finale:

Can't help myself.

[outin]

And I could not agree more about Pollini. I wasn't familiar with him when I bought his Chopin Etudes. They are technically flawless, surgically precise to the n'th degree, but utterly lifeless, as if a corpse were playing. No humanity there. If someone says they like Pollini, I have to wonder what that says about THEM.

You are probably ríght. I really like Pollini (his recordings, have not heard him live). This must be a reflection of myself, I am not someone who values emotionality or "life" over perfection.

[outin]

I understand how frustrating it must be for those struggling for recognition, but I do think sometimes -- under rare circumstances  -- talent does prevail.   Think: Emanuel Ax and Andre Watts.  And although he is an unusual case, Nobuyuki Tsujii (born blind and pear-shaped in physique) is already a living legend in Japan.

It will be much harder to overcome the external expectations if you're a woman. Are there any well known younger female pianists who do not have the looks as well?

[ubon2010]

It will be much harder to overcome the external expectations if you're a woman. Are there any well known younger female pianists who do not have the looks as well?

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  I think with most young females with a slender figure, a little makeup and provocative garbs can go a long way.  After all, these performing artists are seldom seen by the audience close-up.  But yes, I agree that the stereotype of a pianist/violinist is harder to overcome for females.

But who is to blame?  Those of us in the audience.  I have no proof, but I wonder if the gender mix of the audience has something to do.  I know from anecdotal postings that in Japan, the audience at the recitals of Nobuyuki Tsujii is predominantly female.  I wonder if the opposite might be true with solo performances of, say, Wang or Lisitsa or Kern?

[j_menz]

Is this thread really not asking any more than why do other people have different taste than me?

[perfect_pitch]

And I could not agree more about Pollini. I wasn't familiar with him when I bought his Chopin Etudes. They are technically flawless, surgically precise to the n'th degree, but utterly lifeless, as if a corpse were playing. No humanity there. If someone says they like Pollini, I have to wonder what that says about THEM.

Considering his Chopin etude recordings have been hailed as timeless and fantastic by many pianists, and his performance of Stravinsky's Trois Mouvements de Petrushka is far superior than anyone elses - I think it says a lot about someone who likes Pollini.

Have you heard him playing the 1st and 2nd Brahms Piano Concertos??? FANTASTIC!!!

[louispodesta]

The phrase that is operative here, extensively utilized in the 1970's, is "sexist pig."

Gina Bachauer, who no one would describe as a "babe," was one of the few pianists prior to 1950, of any gender, who could play the Rachmaninoff 3rd Concerto (and I personally heard her do this).

Alicia de La Roccha, used to stay with a local piano teacher, when she performed wiith our symphony.  She would start practicing/playing at 8:00 AM, then take a lunch break for an hour, and then play until 5:00PM.  She never repeated a piece because she literally had eight hours of solo repertoire up at any given time!

These were true musicians who let their talent speak for itself.  No hype, just music.

[birba]

Alicia della rocha, in her biography, says if it weren't for this big agent ( maybe sol hurok, i don't remember) who heard her and was so impressed  and organized her first american tour, she would never have made it.  She said he was very disappointed when he learned she wanted to play mozart.
Maria callas said if it hadn't been for meneghini, life would have been difficult.   Bachuer used to enjoy telling people her career took off only because she was  asked to substitute some ailing pianist.  The right place at the right time.  Careers depend on talent to begin with,  but lots more besides.

[ubon2010]

Careers depend on talent to begin with,  but lots more besides.

Is it the case that compared to the past, the marketing ploys for concert pianists are more intense -- and dare I say in some cases more deceptive -- these days, given the reach of YouTube, FB and twitter, etc.?

[steinway43]

Is it the case that compared to the past, the marketing ploys for concert pianists are more intense -- and dare I say in some cases more deceptive -- these days, given the reach of YouTube, FB and twitter, etc.?

In some cases I think so. There are real musicians playing (like Nobu) and hyped people who are so-so but with a good image (Kern). Both are out there.

[tdawe]

On Kern and the Brahms Paganini Variations, I took one chance on her and bought her recording of them. I can't believe a label would release such awful playing. But with her image they know they can market the hell out of her and make MONEY. I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to stop and listen to Kissin's recording to restore my sanity.

And I could not agree more about Pollini. I wasn't familiar with him when I bought his Chopin Etudes. They are technically flawless, surgically precise to the n'th degree, but utterly lifeless, as if a corpse were playing. No humanity there. If someone says they like Pollini, I have to wonder what that says about THEM.

 

What utterly pretentious rubbish you are full of. I'm not even sure if this deserves a response... why there's a beautiful recording by Pollini posted in this thread alone. Maybe you should try not being so ridiculously bigoted?

[steinway43]

I'm not the pretentious one. Get a life.

[birba]

Why do we have to admire pollini?!   To each his own.  De gustibus non est disputandum...

[dima_76557]

Why do we have to admire pollini?!   To each his own.  De gustibus non est disputandum...

I think that is not the problem, birba. Tastes differ. It becomes a problem when we start questioning certain personal qualities and/or brain functions of the ones who DO like this or that famous pianist, deserved or not, as some provocative posts in this thread suggest. If, for example, the first encounter with the art of someone like Vladimir Horowitz is his concerts in Japan (he was clearly ill or otherwise out of order there), then one could also easily come to the conclusion that his many fans are wrong.

[louispodesta]

What I, and maybe steinway 43, are talking about is that the obvious difference between pianists of today and old is a certain amount of reality when it actually comes to performing.  Whether you were a fan of Rubinstein, Arrau, Horowitz, de La Roccha or others, these people could get up and play, and they could and did, for the most part, play most of the entire repertoire.

Today, somebody wins a big contest like the Cliburn or Chopin Competition, and all of a sudden they are a musical god.  You play fast, loud, and hit a lot of right notes, and that is all that matters.

I have Pollini's recordings of the Chopin Etudes and the Petroushka, which I think had the hands recorded separately, but I can't prove that.  Glenn Gould used to do it all of the time in the 1960's, so this fakery has been around for awhile.

However, after hearing Pollini play the Schumann A Minor Concerto live on the radio, I wouldn't walk across the street to hear him play a scale.  He actually played it so fast that he played though the melody.  I was flabbergasted!

The point is that musicality in today's pianists is sorely lacking, and, at the rate it is going, in 20 years there won't be anyone concertizing at all.  As it is now, there are only a handful of people on this planet who can earn a good living by just concertizing alone.

And, a very big part of the problem is that all of these hotshots like Argerich, Pollini, Lang Lang, and Kern continue to get great reviews and no one gets up and says:  wait a minute, these people are not musical gods, they are pianisitic gymnasts who exploit their art for personal gain.

[perfect_pitch]

And, a very big part of the problem is that all of these hotshots like Argerich, Pollini, Lang Lang, and Kern continue to get great reviews and no one gets up and says:  wait a minute, these people are not musical gods, they are pianisitic gymnasts who exploit their art for personal gain.

Okay - I can't believe I have to say this AGAIN, but don't lump Argerich, Pollini and Kern in with bloody Lang Lang for goodness sake. There's A CLEAR DIFFERENCE!!!

Pollini has shown in multiple instances that he can perform a work brilliantly in terms of nuance, subtlety, bravura and emote - while very few instances could be said of Lang Lang.

Can we please not lump the greats with the losers.

[dima_76557]

Today, somebody wins a big contest like the Cliburn or Chopin Competition, and all of a sudden they are a musical god.  You play fast, loud, and hit a lot of right notes, and that is all that matters.

I hate the competition-career system too, but that is mostly my own problem. No use venting my frustrations about it at the cost of those who are successfully exploited by greedy managers. By the way, the majority of those who won all kinds of competitions through all those years didn't make it. Some did, perhaps with luck, with clout, with good management, etc. So be it. Deserved or undeserved is not for me to decide.

The point is that musicality in today's pianists is sorely lacking, and, at the rate it is going, in 20 years there won't be anyone concertizing at all.  As it is now, there are only a handful of people on this planet who can earn a good living by just concertizing alone.

I think the commercial concertizing system as we know it has outlived itself anyway and needs to be replaced with something more healthy. Isn't it crazy that some performers already know where they will be in 5 years and what they will play? I have serious doubts that any serious musician really enjoys such a state of affairs.

And, a very big part of the problem is that all of these hotshots like Argerich, Pollini, Lang Lang, and Kern continue to get great reviews and no one gets up and says:  wait a minute, these people are not musical gods, they are pianisitic gymnasts who exploit their art for personal gain.

This is not meant disrespectfully, but still, I object against your using veterans' names in this context. Argerich and Pollini have certainly earned their places among the great pianists and deserve to be left alone. It's not they that are to blame for the status quo of concert life. Since I think you as a music journalist/critic have a calling to instill good taste in your audience, I would rather see you highlight young people you feel deserve positive attention than resort to bashing celebrities with an established name.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have Pollini's recordings of the Chopin Etudes and the Petroushka, which I think had the hands recorded separately, but I can't prove that.  Glenn Gould used to do it all of the time in the 1960's, so this fakery has been around for awhile.

"all the time"? I've never heard any evidence of this practise. I believe you're thinking solely of the Beethoven 5th symphony- where he didn't play the hands separately but rather redistributed a complex texture and added a part of it on a separate overdubbed track, for the sake of greater control. He also used overdubbing for an extra third hand on his own arrangements of la valse and wagner's meistersingers. Neither was a case of recording hands separately as two hands could not physically play all those notes.

I've never encountered a single piece of evidence that gould recorded hands one at a time, nor is there any obvious reason to believe he might have needed to. Are you misinterpreting what he did in those examples, or do you have direct evidence of such a practise?

[louispodesta]

Other than having a sworn affidavit from Gould himself, my late teacher told me in the 1970's that Gould had a very sophisticated recording studio at his estate.  What he would do is to take the right hand, and then the left hand of a multiple voice Bach piece, and then re-write each hand for two hands.

Then, after recording each part, he would mix the two together.  This is how he could attain the crystal clear voicing for which his recordings are famous.

With Pollini and the Petroushka, my ears can definitely hear a separation between the two hands in terms of any overtone blending that occurs with normal two hand playing.  He may have learned this recording technique from Michelangeli because when you listen to his recording of the Italian Concerto, there is this distinct separate clarity between the two hands.

[nyiregyhazi]

Other than having a sworn affidavit from Gould himself, my late teacher told me in the 1970's that Gould had a very sophisticated recording studio at his estate.  What he would do is to take the right hand, and then the left hand of a multiple voice Bach piece, and then re-write each hand for two hands.

Then, after recording each part, he would mix the two together.  This is how he could attain the crystal clear voicing for which his recordings are famous.

With Pollini and the Petroushka, my ears can definitely hear a separation between the two hands in terms of any overtone blending that occurs with normal two hand playing.  He may have learned this recording technique from Michelangeli because when you listen to his recording of the Italian Concerto, there is this distinct separate clarity between the two hands .

are you for real? "my teacher told me" x is on a par with saying "some bloke down the pub told me that he met Elvis" therefore he's not dead. The highly esteemed pianist Peter Donohoe told me in a master class how Rachmaninoff plays a passage from his D major Prelude, which he said he got from listening to his recording. No such recording exists either commercially or privately. That's why the appeal to authority does not make for a remotely valid piece of evidence, for anyone who cares about standards of truth and accuracy, without proper verification of first hand evidence. Your teacher has taken strands of truth about Gould and merged them together into a grossly distorted and bastardised piece of fantastical nonsense.

He achieved the clarity for which his recordings are famous by a combination of dry acoustic, close miking and ability to play that way. You're also suggesting that Michelangeli taught him this imagined recording technique? who the hell was overdubbing in the 50s when he recorded the Italian Concerto? And your evidence is the certainty of your ears? after hearing the lack of musical voicing and phrasing on your video, I'm afraid that mere use of your ears is not going to persuade me of much, never mind that such outrageously fanciful conspiracies must be true. the whole idea of good pianism is to fool the ears. do you think Horowitz literally had three hands, on the basis of the stars and stripes?

[pianoman53]

To quote a teacher and to listen to some dude at a pub is not quite the same thing, now is it? I don't know if Gould recorded hand separate, and I really hope (and therefore think) that he didn't. However, instead of being a jerk, and comparing his teacher with a drunk from a pub is just straight on rude. WHY DO YOU CONSTANTLY HAVE TO BE RUDE???! Does it help anyone, do you feel better, do you get a boner from it, do you think girls are going to like you? I really don't get it! Is it that difficult to ask something without the biatch attitude? Dammit!

[nyiregyhazi]

To quote a teacher and to listen to some dude at a pub is not quite the same thing, now is it? I don't know if Gould recorded hand separate, and I really hope (and therefore think) that he didn't. However, instead of being a jerk, and comparing his teacher with a drunk from a pub is just straight on rude. WHY DO YOU CONSTANTLY HAVE TO BE RUDE???! Does it help anyone, do you feel better, do you get a boner from it, do you think girls are going to like you? I really don't get it! Is it that difficult to ask something without the biatch attitude? Dammit!

I'm not interested  in your opinion on my manners. Only in exposing such outrageous claptrap, that falsely slanders a number of  highly talented pianists (one of whom is alive and would have every right to take legal action against the poster for the silly unevifenced claim) . Claiming that an unnamed teacher once told a fact without offering verification would be considered equally unacceptable as evidence by any court of law as saying that an unnamed bloke in the pub told you. It's not even hyperbole to draw comparison.

I'm reporting your post to the moderators once again, and will continue to stick the topical issue. if you want a slanging match, you're not getting one, sorry.

[pianoman53]

Oh no..!

[g_s_223]

Quite some years ago, I personally saw Pollini play Petroushka in the Royal Festival Hall in London: he played it magnificently, a truly stunning performance of this fiendishly awkward piece. Therefore, have no doubts over his ability to play this piece.

Conceivably the only real issue one might have with Pollini is his influence on younger pianists, some of whom may lose sight of the wood of musicality for the trees of perfected technique, if you see what I mean.